Search results

Illuminates a selection of technologies that will enhance the interactions between companies and consumers, revealing some strategic ramifications of these developments across a range of sectors. Concludes that strategists should exploit the emerging business environment driven by technologies that enhance the online experience for customers and other stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to reveal the golden rules for formulating future channel strategies in consumer‐facing organizations in both commercial and public sectors.

The rules for future channel strategy come to light through practical experience and subsequent critical examination of leading practice in a wide range of industries including telecommunications, and media and entertainment, as well as utilities, retail, retail financial services, travel and the public sector.

Current trends in channel strategy require a fundamental re‐think of the roles played at the consumer interface by people on one hand, and by machines on the other; leading to social and technological implications respectively. Successful channel strategies will direct the target mix of channels to the serve the most common reasons for contact with customers; taking into account the associated costs, customer segments, and frequency of contact. They will exploit simultaneous channel interactions, higher levels of channel prescription and constraint in the number of customer access points. The emerging strategies will determine refresh of enabling customer‐facing IT systems and, crucially, drive the business transformation required for success in multi‐channel environments.

Organizations that observe the channel strategy rules in this paper will develop superior channel strategies. The rewards include genuine sales volume or margin improvements for retailers, major cost savings in the public sector, and more‐competitive business models in travel and entertainment.

To consider the recent decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hurst Stores v. M L Europe Property Ltd (2004) and the possible important implications for building surveyors and other construction professionals.

A review of literature and case law. Possible developments in this area of law are considered.

A person described as a “project manager” does not necessarily have authority to make legally binding agreements. Where a building surveyor is acting as a project manager, the extent of authority ought to be clarified, preferably in writing. Where a building surveyor is dealing or negotiating with a project manager, he/she cannot take it for granted that any agreement reached will be legally binding. Furthermore, as a consequence of the decision in the Court of Appeal, a document with the heading “Final Account” might not be a final account at all!

Increasingly, building surveyors are involved in adjudication, either as witnesses or as adjudicators. In the latter case, the building surveyor ought to be aware that as a result of this case, the probability of a legal challenge to an adjudicator's decision is greatly increased. Another consequence of cases such as Hurst means that building surveyors are more likely rather than less likely to be involved in adjudication if they are operating in the UK.

Applies recent case law to the work of building surveyors.